How about we start with encouraging people to do the right thing instead of taxing them into compliance?

I'm NOT a "denier" as I was IMMEDIATELY branded, simply because I had the nerve to disagree.

I do my part. I use a fuel-efficient vehicle (I live in the country, an electric car for me is simply not feasible) and burn bio-fuels as much as possible. I grow and raise animals organically. I recycle not only plastics, metal and glass but I recycle offal and plant material for mulch and fertilizer and I recycle rainwater as well.

I personally don't exploit the environment for personal gain because it's MORALLY WRONG. How about that answer?

My problem is that the guy that lives down the road from me isn't ME. He has a different living situation and some of my choices won't work for him. Furthermore, the young couple that lives the other direction simply CANNOT AFFORD to make the changes I've made, they're working 2 jobs each already.

And therein lies my problem - the "climate change" movement chooses the earth over people. Most of the legislation that's been proposed or put in place puts an unequal burden on the people in the US that can afford it least. The party that is supposedly for the "poor" is championing climate policy that is HURTING THE POOR.

Meanwhile, countries like India and China are pouring pollutants into the atmosphere at an alarming rate and we're doing nothing about it. We'd rather punish our own citizens than, you know, actually stop climate change.
[Reply]

DING DING DING

I'm in the heart of the third largest city in America right now. The air is clean. I'm thinking you couldn't say the same thing in the third largest city in China.

The progs trying to shove all this green energy crap down our throats while ignoring the worst offenders is about as smart as disarming law abiding citizens in an attempt to alleviate gun crimes. In fact, I kind of sense a pattern here.
[Reply]

Ice core analysis is still comparative, theoretical science. They're using an estimated baseline for comparison, not an actual one.

And I believe NASA, like many other government agencies (I've done work for several over the last few years) is willing to do things that help their budget. Our legislative and executive branches absolutely are in the propaganda business (regardless of party affiliation) and are not above threatening legitimate agencies to get the results they want.

As for the bulk of my previous comment, I was merely pointing out the cognitive dissonance involved in believing in macro-evolution, the conventional geologic timeline, and man-made climate change.
[Reply]

There is no current federal climate change taxation involving taxing individuals like yourself or the guy that lives down the road from you. The idea that climate change mitigation means individuals give up their vehicles for bikes, etc. is simply not true and will never be true. Any potential solution cannot undermine the country's economic prosperity. There will never be any draconian climate policy that lowers the quality of life for citizens. That's just hyperbolic silliness which would never get passed(Green Deal stupidity). The things you list above are positive personal choices. But it can't be mandated that every citizen live that way. That's clearly not feasible. There are other more effective ways to achieve mitigation anyway. The climate change denial effort would have you believe that mitigation means reaching directly into citizens' wallets, but that's simply fear mongering.

Also, India and China are actually making better progress than you realize. India is currently on track to reach it's Paris Climate Agreement goals ahead of schedule. China has done the same, and soon could be the world leader in climate change mitigation. Both of those countries are making real accountable progress. Meanwhile, the US just saw its biggest CO2 emissions increase in many years.
[Reply]

Comparative theoretical science? What do you mean?
[Reply]

I disagree. The emissions we have are because those options are cheap. In an attempt to stay out of the weeds there is no way to move away from the most economical options without fiscal strain.
[Reply]

People made the same claims when the US started regulating leaded gasoline. The industry used leaded gas then for the same reason, because it was cheaper. Industry giants denied the science showing lead was harmful, and tried to convince people that it would ruin the economy if we regulated this cheap energy source. Yet we found a way and we're safer for it now. We'll do that with climate change too.
[Reply]

Well I’m all about that then. But color me skeptical. I’ve already went backwards on emissions standards. Tier 4 engines haven’t been kind to the farm economically, And it’s not me being a whiney bitch. There is definitely an economic toll being extracted with that set of regulations.
[Reply]

So full of shit.

Lead was ADDED to gasoline to increase octane and thereby increase performance in the less sophisticated engines of the day.
The gas crunch took performance out of the calculus for desirable vehicles for a while, then engineering produced performances gains without the necessity of lead-induced octane levels.

Lead was never about price or economy.
[Reply]

Here's a quote directly from one of the EPA officials who was responsible for the leaded gasoline regulation.

Straight from the EPA at the time. So next time you tell someone they're full of shit, maybe you should know what the fuck you're talking about.
[Reply]

Now is when people say fake news. Because in this thread super scientists feel they know the truth better than Nasa scientists. It's amazing.
[Reply]

You're gonna support your bullshit argument with someone 'postulating' a bullshit argument. Strong stuff.

The premise of the need for lead was a continuing need for the performance provided by octane boost in large powerplants.
People instead sacrificed horsepower until newer engines with fuel injection and computer monitoring made up the difference with less potent fuels.

Gas prices never rose with the removal of lead because people adapted by either living with underpowered vehicles or buying smaller lighter vehicles. And the auto industry flat out sucked balls for their lack of timely adaption for decades, leading to the rise of imports from which the US industry never fully recovered.

But even then, with the fallout that DID happen, removing lead from gas just made for shitty cars. There's a difference between sacrificing pep in your 0-60 time on the highway and sacrificing all your energy consumption. It's one thing if your car accelerates like a dog. It's another if your house is 50 degrees, or 40 in winter, or 100 in summer. It's another if it costs you twice as much to keep your refrigerator cold as it did last year. You can't 'adapt' to a shitty refrigerator that doesn't keep your food frozen or your milk cold like you can an underpowered car.
[Reply]

Well, when the argument falls back to appeal to authority fallacy, the job is done.

Thanks.
[Reply]

I grew up on the Jersey Shore. Lots of dead Guidos gonna happen when the ice melts.
[Reply]

Don't be dense. This isn't someone postulating. The authors are the ones who wrote the 70s regulations. There's nobody better qualified on the matter.

First sentence of the article:

This article describes the personal experience and perspective of the authors, who had primary responsibility for drafting the initial health-based regulation limiting lead content of gasoline during the early 1970s while employed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
[Reply]